Appeal No. 2003-1844 Page 5
Application No. 09/643,130
1 and 12 was misdescriptive. The examiner then noted that reproducing can mean
providing a copy or replacing such as to recreate and that the specification only
discloses reproducing by playing sound through a speaker.
In our view, the metes and bounds of the phrase "may be reproduced" as utilized
in independent claims 1 and 12 can be understood with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity as pointed out by the appellants (brief, p. 6; reply brief, pp. 1-
2). Accordingly, claims 1 and 12 are not indefinite under the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112. In that regard, breadth of a limitation of a claim is not to be equated
with indefiniteness. See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA
1971).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 23, 25, 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007